For those not yet following the competition, the next round of games in Euro 2008 is as follows:

Portugal v Germany
Croatia v Turkey
Holland v Russia
Spain v Italy

The games will be played on a knockout basis ... ie, all results will be decided on the night, with extra-time and penalties if a definite winner isn't produced within the regulation ninety minutes.

All four games are shaping up to be absoloute crackers.

Portugal v Germany features pits talented underachievers against an uninspiring German side, who nonetheless, always seem to pull through.

cf, english football legend Gary Lineker: "Football is a game played between two teams of eleven, which Germany always win."

Croatia v Turkey showcases two of the dark horses of the tournement. Croatia have been undeniably the stronger of the two thus far, but you'd toss a coin on this one, I reckon.

Holland v Russia. Holland have been amazing so far. Russia had lacked a great deal until tonight. However, they're ten times better with Arshavin in the team. He was reinstated tonight after a two match suspension, and he was simply brilliant against the solid but pedestrian Swedes. I love the Dutch football team ... not just the current crop, but historically. And yet, I maintain, they'll always find a way to muck it up.

And then there's Spain v Italy. Spain have been very good. Italy, the world champions, very leaden. Yet this confrontation is summed up adequately by a quote from the sports editor of Madrid newspaper AS. When asked whether he was afraid of Italy, he replied "No, I'm not afraid. I'm terrified."

The Italians don't like losing, and they'll do everything within the laws of the game, and much that isn't, to prevent defeat.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2417Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject:

Uncle Taylorbell wrote:

Go Celtics!

I was gutted to miss the game. But the better team undeniably triumphed.

I've been a Celtics fan since the mid 70s and I can't recall a more satisfying game. Most of the 'experts' figured the Lakers would win by virtue of their having played in a tougher conference and having had an easier run through the playoffs than the Celtics did. Games 1 through 3 of the Finals were predictably won by the home teams each night. In Game 4 the Celtics came back from a huge deficit to win on the road, and but for a timely steal and dunk by Kobe Bryant in the closing minutes they would have repeated that performance in Game 5. I really expected them to win again once they were back in Boston, but I couldn't have imagined the clinic they put on.

I'm really happy for Paul Pierce, who has played his entire career with Boston and suffered through season after season of franchise irrelevance. A player whose individual talent was overshadowed by the mediocrity of his team after the passing of Reggie Lewis. The Celtics would always do well enough to either just miss out on getting a really high draft pick, or when they were really bad their number just wouldn't come up in the draft lottery system and/or the highly touted player they did pick turned into a bust or blossomed later under another team, and their cycle of middle-of-the-road performances would continue. By winning the championship he has cemented his place as one of the greatest Celtics of all time (he quietly replaced Larry Bird as the all time leading scorer for the franchise a few years ago), and I will be happy to see his number hang from the rafters with other Celtics legends when he retires.

Quote:

The same, of course, can be said about Russia's win against Sweden tonight.

I like to play soccer/football, but I have a hard time watching it for any great length of time. ESPN showed highlights from one of the recent matches, and one team was described by them as 'pouring it on' when they scored a goal late in the match. However, the team they said was 'pouring it on' was only up 1-0 when they scored again, and the final score was only 2-0. Wait, what?

I guess I'm just not patient enough to sit through an entire sporting event in which fewer than ten points combined are scored for the most part. Hockey strikes me the same way, but I can sit through baseball games just fine for some reason. I think that because the games of hockey and soccer are in constant motion, my expectations are that scoring would happen more often than it does. Not that it isn't exciting when someone scores a goal; it's great, and I surmise that it might be the relatively rare scoring that makes those goals more special. I dunno. By contrast, baseball is much more a wait-and-see game most of the time, so it doesn't surprise me that a game in which seven people watch two people play catch for the better part of nine innings ends with a 2-0 score.

By contrast, my friends think a sporting event in which teams score practically at will and games frequently end with both scores in triple figures makes scoring so trivial it's boring. Ah well, to each their own.

Turkey won in penalties it seems. I missed the game as I have been travelling for fucking 9,5 hours this day, train bus and car. Goddamn I'm too tired to really care about about this stuff._________________

Croatia scored a header with a minute left in the second 15 minute period. Turkey kicked in the equalizer with no time left (or negative time left). Croatia then missed the first and third penalty kicks and the Turkish keeper knocked away the fourth. Quite the roller coaster!